Case :Rajak Mohammad v State of Himachal Pradesh
Date of Decision : August 23,2018
Name of Judges:
1.Ranjan Gogoi
2.Navin Sinha
3. K.M Joseph
Appelant : Rajak Mohammad
Respondent : State of Himachal Pradesh
FACTS
1- The accused-appellant was charged under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Penal Code by the trial court and further the High Court had recorded the order of conviction under the Sections mentioned above.
2- The evidence of Prosecutrix with regard to the incident of abduction and commission of rape stands contradicted by her previous statement in writing recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with which she was confronted
3-From the evidence of Bimla Devi it appears that the prosecutrix has remained with the accused appellant for about two days in Kullu in the house of Bimla devi and that there were about 60-70 houses in the village.
4- The materials on record also indicate that the prosecutrix remained in the company of the accused appellant for about 12 days until she was recovered and that she had freely moved around with the accused appellant in the course of which movement she had come across many people at different points of time. Yet, she did not complain of any criminal act on the part of the accused appellant.
ISSUE
Whom the benefit of doubt regarding the age in sexual offence be given - defence or prosecution.
ARGUMENT RAISED
1-The age of the prosecutrix has been sought to be proved by the prosecution by bringing on record the School Admission Form and the certificate issued by Jasdeep Kaur , JBT Teacher of Government School Dungi Plate.
2- Jasdeep kaur in her deposition has stated that the writings in the School Admission Form are in her handwriting and the signature affixed is that of the mother of the prosecutrix.
3-In cross-examination, Jasdeep Kaur had stated that the details mentioned in School Admission Form have been obtained from the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Tambol. The certificate issued by the Government Primary School Tambol was the basis of which the details in the School Admission form was filled up by Jasdeep Kaur has not been exhibited by the prosecution.
4-Nothing hinges on the document exhibited by the prosecution as Exhibit certificate as that is the consequential certificate issued on the basis of the entries in Exhibit School Admission Form . The mother of the prosecutrix who had allegedly signed Exhibit School Admission Form has not been examined by the prosecution.
5- On the other hand, the evidence of Dr. Neelam Gupta , a Radiologist working in the Civil Hospital, Nalagarh who had given an opinion that the age of the prosecutrix was between 17 to 18 years.
JUDGEMENT
1-The judgement was given “per curiam” .
2-The Supreme Court by stating that the “benefit of doubt” should naturally go to the accused in the present case on the basis of the recorded pieces of evidence and facts and held that the possibility of the prosecutrix to be a consenting party cannot be ruled out altogether.
Hence, setting aside the High Court’s order, the accused-appellant was acquitted from all the charges.
CONCLUSION
While it is correct that the age determined on the basis of a radiological examination may not an accurate determination and sufficient margin either way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts stated read with the report of the radiological examination leaves room for ample doubt with regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix.
Comments